The contro

versies

IX. Though the credit of Origen, and his system, seemed to lie expiring under the blows it had received from the zeal of the orthodox, and the repeated verning Orithunder of synods and councils, yet it was very doctrine refar from being totally sunk. On the contrary,

gen and his

newed.

this great man, and his doctrine, were held by many, and especially by the monks, in the highest veneration, and cherished with a kind of enthusiasm which became boundless and extravagant. In the west, Bellator translated the works of Origen into the Latin language. In the eastern provinces, and particularly in Syria and Palestine, which were the principal seats of Origenism, the monks, seconded by several bishops, and chiefly by Theodore of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, defended the truth and authority of the doctrines of Origen against all his adversaries with incredible vehemence and contention of mind. The cause was at length brought before Justinian, who, in a long and verbose edict, addressed to Mennas patriarch of Constantinople, passed a severe condemnation upon Origen and his doctrine, and ordered it to be entirely suppressed.' The effects of this edict were more violent than durable; for, upon the breaking out of the controversy concerning the three chapters," soon after this time, Origenism was not only revived in Palestine, but even recovered new vigour, and spread itself far and wide. Hence many commotions were raised in the church, which were however terminated by the fifth general council, assembled at Constantinople by Justinian, A. D. 533, and in which Origen and his followers were again condemned."

The contro

x. This controversy produced another, which continued much longer, was carried on with still more excessive degrees of animosity and violence, and very go the subject of which was of much less moment three chap

cerning the

ters.

i Cyrillus, Scythopolis, in Vita Sabe, which is to be found in Cotelerius, Monumenta Ecclesiæ Græcæ, p. 370, Henr. Noris, Dissertat. de Synodo Quinta, cap. i. ii. p. 554, tom. i. opp.

k This edict is published in Harduin's Concilia, tom. iii. p. 243,

I This edict was procured by the solicitation of Pelagius, who was legate of Vigilius at the court of Constantinople, with a view to confound the Acephali, who were admirers of Origen, and particularly to vex Theodore, of whose credit with the emperor, Pelagius was extremely jealous. It was to return this affront, as well as to effect the purposes mentioned in the following section, that Theodore set on foot the controversy concerning the three chapters, which produced such tedious, cruel, and fatal dissensions in the church. See Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, livr. x. ch. vi. p. 520.

m For an explication of what is meant by the three chapters, see note o of the xth

section.

n See Harduini Concilia, tom. iii. p. 283. Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xxxviii. VOL. I. 54

and importance. The emperor Justinian was eagerly bent upon extirpating that violent branch of the Monophysites, which was distinguished by the name of Acephali; and consulted upon this matter, Theodore, bishop of Cæsarea, who was a Monophysite, and at the same time, extremely attached to the doctrine of Origen. The artful prelate considered this as a favourable opportunity of procuring repose to the followers of Origen by exciting a new controversy, as also of casting a reproach upon the council of Chalcedon, and giving a mortal blow to the Nestorians and their cause. In order therefore to effect these three important purposes, he persuaded the emperor that the Acephali would return to the bosom of the church, under the following easy and reasonable conditions; namely, "that those passages in the acts of the council of Chalcedon, in which Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyprus, and Ibas of Edessa, had been pronounced orthodox, should be effaced; and that the productions of these prelates, which were known by the appellation of the three chapters, as also other writings of theirs, which discovered a manifest propensity toward the Nestorian errors, should be condemned and prohibited." The emperor lent a propitious ear to the councils of this prelate; and by an edict published, A. D. 544, ordered the three chapters to be condemned and effaced, without any prejudice, however, to the authority of the council of Chalcedon." This edict was warmly opposed by the African and western bishops, and particularly by Vigilius, the Roman pontiff, who considered it as highly injurious not only to the authority of the council now mentioned, but also to the memory of those holy men whose writings and characters it covered

P. 345.

Basnage, Hist. de l'Eglise, livr. x. chap. vi. p. 517, &c. Pet. Dan. Huelii Origemene, lib. ii. p. 224. Doucin's Singular Diss. which is subjoined to his Historia Origeniane, o The pieces that were distinguished by the appellation of the three chapters, were, 1. The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyprus wrote against the twelve Anathemas, which Cyril had published against the Nestorians. 3. The letter which Ibas of Edessa had written to one Maris a Persian, concerning the council of Ephesus and the condemnation of Nestorius. These writings were supposed to favour the Nestorian doctrine, and such indeed was their tendency. It is however to be observed, that Theodore of Mopsuestia lived before the time of Nestorius, and died not only in the communion of the church, but also in the highest reputation for his sanctity. Nor were the writings of the other two either condemned or censured by the council of Chalcedon; nay, the faith of Theodoret and Ibas was there declared entirely orthodox. The decision of the council of Constantinople, in opposition to this, shows that councils, as well as doctors, differ.

p See Harduini Concilia, tom. iii. p. 287. Evagrius, Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. iv. eap. Xxxxviii. p. 412.

with reproach. Upon this, Justinian ordered Vigilius to repair immediately to Constantinople, that having him in his power, he might compel him with more facility to acquiesce in the edict, and reject the three chapters; and this method was attended with success, for the pontiff yielded. On the other hand, the bishops of Africa and Illyricum obliged Vigilius to retract his judicatum, by which, in a council of seventy bishops, he had condemned the three chapters in obedience to the emperor. For they separated themselves from the communion of this pope, and refused to acknowledge him as one of their brethren; nay, treated him as an apostate, until he approved what he had been obliged to condemn. The effect of this retraction redoubled the zeal and violence of Justinian, who, by a second edict, published A. D. 551, condemned anew the three chapters.

The cecume

XI. After many cabals, commotions, and dissensions, which were occasioned by this trifling controversy, it was thought proper to submit the final de- nical council. cision of it to an assembly of the universal church. This assembly was accordingly summoned by Justinian to meet at Constantinople, A. D. 553, and is considered as the fifth ecumenical or general council. The emperor gained his point here; for beside the doctrines of Origen, the three chapters, the condemnation of which he had solely in view, were, by the bishops of the east, for there were very few western prelates present at this council, declared heretical and pernicious. Vigilius, who was now at Constantinople, refused his assent to the decrees of this council; for which reason, after having received various affronts, he was sent into exile, from whence he was not permitted to return

Hen. Noris, De Synodo quinta, cap. x. p. 579, tom. i. opp. Basnage Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. livr. x. cap. vi. p. 523.

Pr We do not find in the acts of this council any one which condemns the doctrines of Origen. It is, however, generally imagined, that these doctrines were condemned by this assembly; and what gave rise to this notion was probably the fifteen Greek canons vet extant, in which the principal errors of Origen are condemned, and which are entitled the canons of the one hundred and sixty fathers assembled in the council of Constantinople. The tenets of Origen, which gave the most offence, were the following; 1. That in the Trinity the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son than the Holy Ghost. 2. The pre-existence of souls, which Origen considered as sent into mortal bodies for the punishinent of sins committed in a former state of being. 3. That the soul of Christ was united to the word before the incarnation. 4. That the sun, moon, and stars, &c. were animated and endowed with rational souls. 5. That after the resurrection all bodies will be of a round figure. 6. That the torments of the damned will have an end; and that as Christ had been crucified in this world to save mankind, he is to be crucified in the next to save the devils.

before he had acquiesced in the decisions of this assembly;" and changing his sentiments for the fourth time, had declared the opinions contained in the three chapters to be execrable blasphemies. His successor Pelagius, and all the Roman pontiffs that have since lolled in the papal chair, adhered to the decrees of this council; but neither their authority, nor that of the emperor, could prevail upon the western bishops to follow their example in this respect. Many of these, on the contrary, carried matters so far as to separate themselves from the communion of the pope on this account; and the divisions that arose from hence in the church, were too violent to admit of an expeditious or easy reconciliation, and could only be healed by length of

time.'

whether one

of the Trinity

have suffered,

debated.

XII. Another controversy of much more importance had The question, been carried on before this period among the Greeks; it was first kindled in the year 519, and may be, it arose upon the following question: whether it could be said with propriety that ONE OF THE TRINITV suffered on the cross. This was designed to embarrass the Nestorians, who seemed to separate too much the two natures in Christ; and the Scythian monks, who seconded this design, and to whom the rise of this controversy is principally to be imputed, maintained the affirmative of this nice and difficult question. Others asserted, on the contrary, that this manner of speaking was by no means to be adopted, since it bordered upon the erroneous expressions and tenets of the Theopaschites, who composed one of the sects into which the Eutychians were subdivided." This latter opinion was confirmed by Hormisdas, the Roman pontiff, to whom the Scythian monks had appealed in vain; but this, instead of allaying the heat of the present controversy, only added new fuel to the flame. John II. who

s See Petr. de Marca, Dissert. de decreto Vigilii pro confirmatione Synodi V. which is to be found among the Dissertations subjoined to his learned work, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii.

t The best account of this matter is to be found in Noris, De synodo quinta æcumenica, though even this excellent author cannot be vindicated from the imputation of a certain degree of partiality. See also Christ. Lupus, Not. ad concilium quintum, in his Ad concitia Adnotat.

Iu The deacon Victor, and those who opposed the Scythian monks, expressed their opinion in the following proposition, viz. one person of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. Both sides received the council of Chalcedon, acknowledged two natures in Christ, in opposition to Eutyches; and only one person in opposition to Nestorius; and yet, by a torrent of jargon, and a long chain of unintelligible syllogisms, the Scythian monks accused their adversaries of Nestorianism, and were accused by them of the Eutychian heresy.

was one of the successors of Hormisdas, approved the proposition which the latter had condemned; and confirming the opinion of the Scythian monks, exposed the decisions of the papal oracle to the laughter of the wise; his sentence was afterward approved by the fifth general council; and thus peace was restored in the church by the conclusion of these unintelligible disputes."

W

With the question now mentioned, there was another closely and intimately connected, namely, whether the person of Christ could be considered as compounded. Of this question the Scythian monks maintained the affirmative, and their adversaries the negative.

CHAPTER IV.

CONCERNING THE RITES AND CEREMONIES USED IN THE CHURCH DURING

THIS CENTURY.

apace,

Rites multi

1. In this century the cause of true religion sunk and the gloomy reign of superstition extended itself in proportion to the decay of genuine piety. plied. This lamentable decay was supplied by a multitude of rites and ceremonies. In the east the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies gave occasion to the invention of various rites and external institutions, which were used as marks to distinguish from each other the contending parties. The western churches were loaded with rites by Gregory the Great, who had a marvellous fecundity of genius in inventing, and an irresistible force of eloquence in recommending superstitious observances. Nor will this appear surprising to those who know that, in the opinion of this pontiff, the words of the sacred writings were images of mysterious and invisible things; for such as embrace this chimerical system will easily be led to express all the doctrines and precepts of religion by external rites and symbols. Gregory indeed is worthy of praise in this, that he did not pretend to force others to the observance of his inventions; though this, perhaps, was as much owing to a want of power, as to a principle of moderation.

w See Norisii Historia Controversia de uno ex Trinitate passo, tom. iii. opp. p 771. The ancient writers who mention this controversy, call the monks who set it on foot, Scythians. But La Croze, in his Thesaur. Epist. tom. iii. p. 189, imagines that the coun try of these monks was Egypt, and not Scythia; and this conjecture is supported by reasons which carry in them, at least, a high degree of probability.